Bezerking units

licker · #1 November 14th, 2003, 08:27 PM

I had something strange happen the other day. Playing with Machaka I had some berzerked Spiders going to town on an indie, when a stray volly of arrows killed my rearmost commander. A turn or two later my melee commander bit it, I was assuming that at that point it'd be game over and everyone would rout, but no... my zerked spidies kept on going and eventually routed the enemy! I won the province with no commanders and no other units (they all ran when the commanders bit it).

It just seemed kind of strange to me that's all. It could be abusable in some way, maybe... if you set your commanders to retreat after 5 rounds, hoping that your zerked units would zerk and then keep on going. Well that's not much of an abuse maybe, but it does seem strange none the less...

HJ · #2 November 14th, 2003, 09:16 PM

Well, they are supposed to that, I think. Berserking means never retreat, so the normal rules don't apply (running away when commanders are dead, or wehen the rest of the squad routs). I've had these situations happen as well, and they seem logical to me. I mean, the berserking units cannot dissolve or anything, and they cannot retreat, so they just keep on fighting.

edit: I think it's balanced through the fact that berserkers may have a one-way ticket to combat if you lose. Usually, you would get a lot of your army back since they ran away, but with berserkers its either with the shield or on the shield, no second chances. So even if they win a few on their own, you will still have a chance to lose them where you normally wouldn't need to if they ran away.

editedit: For example, I was watching a fight between Man and Pangaea. Pangaea army was routed, but just before its minotaur hero exited the map, he was hit by a stray arrow. He turned back, fought, and died. If he wasn't berserking, he would have gotten away to fight another day. But then again, if the situation was slighlty more favourable, he might have routed the Man army (he squashed at least ten opponents while he Lasted), whereas normally he would have just ran away and lost the fight and the province. So, it's a double-edged sword (and a good one, IMHO).

[ November 14, 2003, 19:28: Message edited by: HJ ]

Psitticine · #3 November 14th, 2003, 09:50 PM

I once lost my pretender because he went beserk and refused to retreat with the rest of his army. He caused some damage before he went down, but, in the end, go down he did.

Definitely a trade-off, beserking is. I happen to like it, but I don't think it is overpowered at all.

licker · #4 November 14th, 2003, 09:57 PM

I accept that its a trade off, just that it seems strange to conquer a province with no commanders, that was my only real 'gripe' if you even want to call it that.

HJ · #5 November 14th, 2003, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by licker:
I accept that its a trade off, just that it seems strange to conquer a province with no commanders, that was my only real 'gripe' if you even want to call it that.

Well, you can also look at it in a way that you need to get commanders there after a conquest like that, otherwise your troops may rout upon contact in counterattack (yes, I know you can buy defense and all that, but you won't be able to position them nicely and script orders in the next turn). So, another tradeoff I guess.

[ November 14, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: HJ ]